• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:25
CEST 18:25
KST 01:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202559RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Post Pic of your Favorite Food! The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 903 users

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 448

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 446 447 448 449 450 503 Next
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.

If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:24:44
July 14 2013 09:23 GMT
#8941
On July 14 2013 18:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Stalk people -> harass them until they assault you -> shoot them.

Criminalize weed, legalize murder ^_^ truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure.


Stalking has an actual definition what Zimmerman did does not fit the legal or common definition of the world stalking

There is no evidence Zimmerman harassed Trayvon the conversation with the police dispatcher doesn't indicate that nor does the phone call between Jenteal and Martin indicate that Zimmerman harassed Trayvon in any way

In any case you don't have the right to assault someone because they are bothering you or even actually harassing you, harassment is a crime, call the police. Being bothered by someone is not justification to punch them

That's some cool hipster sayings you got there at the end
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Dfgj
Profile Joined May 2008
Singapore5922 Posts
July 14 2013 09:26 GMT
#8942
On July 14 2013 18:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Stalk people -> harass them until they assault you -> shoot them.

Criminalize weed, legalize murder ^_^ truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure.

Following as neighborhood watch, then checking an address, is not stalking.

Being aggressively confronted by a person who then assaults you is not harassing.
Doomblaze
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States1292 Posts
July 14 2013 09:27 GMT
#8943
On July 14 2013 18:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Stalk people -> harass them until they assault you -> shoot them.

Criminalize weed, legalize murder ^_^ truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure.


Stalking has an actual definition what Zimmerman did does not fit the legal or common definition of the world stalking

There is no evidence Zimmerman harassed Trayvon the conversation with the police dispatcher doesn't indicate that nor does the phone call between Jenteal and Martin indicate that Zimmerman harassed Trayvon in any way

In any case you don't have the right to assault someone because they are bothering you or even actually harassing you, harassment is a crime, call the police. Being bothered by someone is not justification to punch them

That's some cool hipster sayings you got there at the end


Yea I don't know what hes talking about, if you get harassed to the point where you're going to attack someone its better to call the cops and get them in trouble. Also weed is slowly getting legalized so 420blazeit
In Mushi we trust
DemigodcelpH
Profile Joined August 2011
1138 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:31:04
July 14 2013 09:29 GMT
#8944
On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing.


I never said it was an American thing.

On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.


What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous.

From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.

Mannerheim
Profile Joined April 2007
766 Posts
July 14 2013 09:29 GMT
#8945
On July 14 2013 18:20 rasnj wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:13 Mannerheim wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Manslaughter was a charge leveled against Zimmerman.


I know, but when the charge is murder and manslaughter I think a jury is more likely to go for not guilty over guilty of only manslaughter. In my opinion a tactical error from prosecution, as the murder was hard to prove in the first place.

Why do you believe that a jury would act in that way? I am not a lawyer and don't know what makes juries do what juries do, but the prosecution are lawyers and presumably had a reason for doing what they did. Further I have also seen someone in this thread (pre-verdict) suggest that this was a tactical move to trick the jury into going for the "middle ground option" which was manslaughter if they believe someone should be punished since a person was killed after all. This explanation sounds just as valid as your hypothesis.

I'm not suggesting it was or was not a good decision to include a murder charge, but I don't think the majority of people in this thread are qualified to judge whether that decision was sound.


Maybe, but to me the "middle ground option" reeks of desperation, i.e. fishing for any conviction in a pool of charges, which probably means they don't have a strong case in any of them.
Irave
Profile Joined October 2010
United States9965 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:32:01
July 14 2013 09:30 GMT
#8946
On July 14 2013 15:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Riot happening in, where else, Oakland.

I suppose I should have posted the Oakland PD scanner sooner, its a real bore currently. Oakland Scanner


Pictures!
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
Kickboxer
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Slovenia1308 Posts
July 14 2013 09:31 GMT
#8947
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.
rezoacken
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada2719 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:37:35
July 14 2013 09:32 GMT
#8948
On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing.


I never said it was an American thing.

Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.


What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous.

From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.





Edit: Still that whole paragraph is the same thing that has been going on for the last 100pages. We all are not happy with the death of the kid but there is no evidence of murder. Or you don't believe in self-defense... and then I don't know make a case against that ?

Edit 2: Never mind I'm the one being tired.
Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
July 14 2013 09:33 GMT
#8949
On July 14 2013 18:30 Irave wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 15:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Riot happening in, where else, Oakland.

I suppose I should have posted the Oakland PD scanner sooner, its a real bore currently. Oakland Scanner


Pictures!
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]
[image loading]

Nah, this is just Saturday night in Oakland. This doesn't even rise to "the Raiders won".
rasnj
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1959 Posts
July 14 2013 09:33 GMT
#8950
On July 14 2013 18:29 Mannerheim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:20 rasnj wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:13 Mannerheim wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Manslaughter was a charge leveled against Zimmerman.


I know, but when the charge is murder and manslaughter I think a jury is more likely to go for not guilty over guilty of only manslaughter. In my opinion a tactical error from prosecution, as the murder was hard to prove in the first place.

Why do you believe that a jury would act in that way? I am not a lawyer and don't know what makes juries do what juries do, but the prosecution are lawyers and presumably had a reason for doing what they did. Further I have also seen someone in this thread (pre-verdict) suggest that this was a tactical move to trick the jury into going for the "middle ground option" which was manslaughter if they believe someone should be punished since a person was killed after all. This explanation sounds just as valid as your hypothesis.

I'm not suggesting it was or was not a good decision to include a murder charge, but I don't think the majority of people in this thread are qualified to judge whether that decision was sound.


Maybe, but to me the "middle ground option" reeks of desperation, i.e. fishing for any conviction in a pool of charges, which probably means they don't have a strong case in any of them.

Is that so unlikely though? They didn't have a strong case on any count. The prosecution surely must have been desparate given their lack of evidence, so going for the long-shot is probably better than going for a straight forward convservative prosecution which might have predictably failed because the evidence just doesn't support it.
DemigodcelpH
Profile Joined August 2011
1138 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:38:01
July 14 2013 09:36 GMT
#8951
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

Hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


This is also entirely false and insensitive to the Germans who fought for justice during one of the worst periods of time in modern history.

Nazi Germany was beheading pure blooded German students without proper trial ("offenders" like this were often tried in the Volksgericht which was basically a rigged court established after Nazi rule) for simply speaking out.

On July 14 2013 18:32 rezoacken wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing.


I never said it was an American thing.

On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.


What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous.

From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.



She... her...

Do you even know what's this is about ?


Please read more carefully before you comment. It's abundantly clear that it's a hypothetical example.
rezoacken
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada2719 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:45:19
July 14 2013 09:37 GMT
#8952
On July 14 2013 18:36 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

Hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


This is also entirely false and insensitive to the Germans who fought for justice during one of the worst periods of time in modern history.

Nazi Germany was beheading pure blooded German students without proper trial ("offenders" like this were often tried in the Volksgericht which was basically a rigged court established after Nazi rule) for speaking out.

Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:32 rezoacken wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing.


I never said it was an American thing.

On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.


What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous.

From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.



She... her...

Do you even know what's this is about ?


Please read more carefully before you comment. It's abundantly clear that it's a hypothetical example.


Sorry reread and edited.

As for the example I'm not sure what your point is. If it was the exact same thing as for the testimonies, aftermath and evidences displayed I would like the same verdict. What's your point ? If it isn't treated equally, then its not fair. However the prosecution would have a better point saying a 17yo girl is probably less of a threat maybe...

Still what is your point with your example, it's not the current case.
Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
Mafe
Profile Joined February 2011
Germany5966 Posts
July 14 2013 09:39 GMT
#8953
So as I don't know too much about the US legal system, will this now most likely go to the next round at a higher court?
rasnj
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1959 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:41:27
July 14 2013 09:40 GMT
#8954
On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.

Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out.

Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion.
DwD
Profile Joined January 2010
Sweden8621 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:44:02
July 14 2013 09:43 GMT
#8955
On July 14 2013 18:39 Mafe wrote:
So as I don't know too much about the US legal system, will this now most likely go to the next round at a higher court?


I'd say that's unlikely since the state knows their case is weak in the first place and only prosecuted due to media forcing them. It might go to civil case if the family of Trayvon wants to sue Zimmerman.

I was a bit worried when the jury wanted manslaughter clarification rules.. Glad they came to the right conclusion lol.
~ T-ARA ~ DREAMCATCHER ~ EVERGLOW ~ OH MY GIRL ~ DIA ~ BOL4 ~ CHUNGHA ~
Krohm
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
Canada1857 Posts
July 14 2013 09:47 GMT
#8956
On July 14 2013 18:40 rasnj wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.

Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out.

Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion.

You know your post got me thinking.

If you knew someone was going to attack you pretty badly but you wanted to murder them. Could you hypothetically put yourself into a situation like Zimmerman's and kill them in "self-defense" even though the motive for murder was there. If so could you be charged with 1st degree murder if anyone found out?
Not bad for a cat toy.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
July 14 2013 09:49 GMT
#8957
On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing.


I never said it was an American thing.

Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.


What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous.

From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.



Based on your very unfairly limited description of the events I don't think your opinion on the flakiness or lack thereof of the American justice system has merit.

Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.



Self-defense is not uncommonly argued and it does not work a lot of the time.

Many murders are carefully planned and are still found out, I don't see why carefully planning to make a murder look like self-defense would be more difficult for police to investigate successfully. Some people do try to make their murders look like self-defense, police are pretty good at figuring that kind of thing out.

It's absurd anyway to suggest that in the space of 3-4 minutes Zimmerman decided to kill Martin and claim self-defense.

After the police came Zimmerman told a woman cop it didn't matter if he killed Martin in self-defense or not, according to his (Zimmerman's) religion (Catholicism) it was just as bad to kill him no matter the reason. Police testified that they believed Zimmerman was truthful (or a "pathological" aka nearly perfect liar).

Zimmerman doesn't seem to be a pathological liar or some kind of criminal genius to me. Doesn't seem possible that he formed the idea and the plan for the perfect crime in the space of a few minutes and then pulled it off perfectly.

The problem is that people come in and just falsely characterize what happened or say things that are denigrating Zimmerman that just aren't true and if they had followed the trial past a casual level at all they wouldn't say things so obviously wrong.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
rezoacken
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada2719 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:54:16
July 14 2013 09:50 GMT
#8958
On July 14 2013 18:47 Krohm wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:40 rasnj wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.

Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out.

Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion.

You know your post got me thinking.

If you knew someone was going to attack you pretty badly but you wanted to murder them. Could you hypothetically put yourself into a situation like Zimmerman's and kill them in "self-defense" even though the motive for murder was there. If so could you be charged with 1st degree murder if anyone found out?


Yes, if it can be proven you had ill intent. Like for example take the exact same scenario as Zimmerman but add the fact that he knows TM and hates him according to his neighbor or something.
That would weight heavily against you and probably send him to jail.

Either way its always the same thing, the prosecution tries to prove something and the defense tries to prove something of a lesser degree. The hard part is proving either side.
Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
crayhasissues
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States682 Posts
July 14 2013 09:52 GMT
#8959
On July 14 2013 18:36 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

Hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


This is also entirely false and insensitive to the Germans who fought for justice during one of the worst periods of time in modern history.

Nazi Germany was beheading pure blooded German students without proper trial ("offenders" like this were often tried in the Volksgericht which was basically a rigged court established after Nazi rule) for simply speaking out.

Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:32 rezoacken wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.

All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing.


I never said it was an American thing.

On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.


What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.


The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous.

From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.



She... her...

Do you even know what's this is about ?


Please read more carefully before you comment. It's abundantly clear that it's a hypothetical example.


What does any of that have to do with this case? Stay on topic please.
twitch.tv/crayhasissues ||| @crayhasissues on twitter ||| Dota 2 Streamer that loves to help new players!
rasnj
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1959 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-14 09:58:29
July 14 2013 09:55 GMT
#8960
On July 14 2013 18:47 Krohm wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 14 2013 18:40 rasnj wrote:
On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.

Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out.

Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion.

You know your post got me thinking.

If you knew someone was going to attack you pretty badly but you wanted to murder them. Could you hypothetically put yourself into a situation like Zimmerman's and kill them in "self-defense" even though the motive for murder was there. If so could you be charged with 1st degree murder if anyone found out?

I wouldn't know how to put myself in such a situation. You need to somehow create a situation where you can reasonably argue that you fear for your life, but you also need to make sure that you don't actually die or sustain permanent injuries.What if Zimmerman had lost consciousness after the first blow? What if he had fallen on the concrete hard enough to sustain brain damage? When you are getting beaten can you really remain calm enough to decide when it is time to pull out your gun, and be certain that you will be able to do this? And if you act in a manner that is very unusual for an assault victim (maybe not trying to get up, maybe not covering your face) you risk leaving forensic evidence. Even then if you manage to barely survive, but killing your assailant you will still need to go through a trial like Zimmerman's and if the situation of your self-defense is suspicious (e.g. if you were known to have ill will towards the other person) you run the risk of actually getting convicted on manslaughter charges.

It seems like a highly risky and dangerous thing to do.

If you are highly experienced in law enforcement you may be able to pull something like that of, but I believe it would probably be easier and safer to "just" pull of a murder with no witnesses and no forensic evidence pointing at you.
Prev 1 446 447 448 449 450 503 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
14:00
King of the Hill #219
davetesta17
Liquipedia
Esports World Cup
11:00
2025 - Final Day
Serral vs ClassicLIVE!
EWC_Arena19460
ComeBackTV 4471
TaKeTV 914
JimRising 710
Hui .667
3DClanTV 409
Fuzer 294
EnkiAlexander 270
Rex239
Reynor150
CranKy Ducklings137
SpeCial78
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena19460
JimRising 710
Hui .667
Fuzer 294
Rex 239
Reynor 150
UpATreeSC 146
SpeCial 78
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 4125
Shuttle 2550
Larva 884
Mini 618
actioN 443
EffOrt 398
Soma 289
ggaemo 252
Rush 132
TY 128
[ Show more ]
Snow 101
Hyun 74
JYJ74
sorry 66
Shine 33
Aegong 29
JulyZerg 15
zelot 11
Sacsri 10
Terrorterran 9
soO 5
Dota 2
Gorgc7323
syndereN455
420jenkins436
XaKoH 375
XcaliburYe300
Counter-Strike
fl0m3975
sgares469
oskar178
Other Games
gofns8857
singsing1736
FrodaN1715
ScreaM1533
Beastyqt764
KnowMe137
ArmadaUGS117
QueenE83
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 31
• FirePhoenix4
• Michael_bg 2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV534
League of Legends
• Nemesis6199
Other Games
• Shiphtur335
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
17h 35m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
21h 35m
CSO Cup
23h 35m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 1h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 16h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 21h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.